Anna Claeys2015-03-03T14:12:00-05:00Anna Claeyshttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=anna-claeysCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Anna ClaeysGood old fashioned elbow grease.Is an Oxbridge Education a Big Deal?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.41011012013-10-15T12:04:06-04:002014-01-23T18:58:21-05:00Anna Claeyshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-claeys/
Even now it makes me feel nervous. Those hours spent scrutinising over my personal statement, feeling absolutely petrified at the Open Day. I've virtually blacked out my Interview Day, the 24 hours before which I neither ate nor slept. At the age of seventeen, it seemed the scariest, most life-changing process I could possibly undertake.

I got lucky, and had a wonderful education. But that education finished last June. As of graduation day I began Real Life in the Economic Crisis and entered into the same competitive, ruthless jobs market as hundreds of thousands of other graduates.

The key point is that these same doors are still open to non-Oxbridge graduates. When I look at my own friends who graduated in the humanities from Oxbridge versus from redbrick universities, there's not as much difference in outcome as you might initially expect. Many Oxbridge graduates do go to the City. But from both groups, several friends have chosen teaching, some are on private sector graduate schemes, and others are in politics or the media. And from both groups, many are unemployed, doing unpaid internships, travelling, or - using the term which tries to define our generation - NEETs. But maybe it'll look different a few years down the road.

Ultimately, a degree from any top university isn't enough these days. In many industries work experience, passion and determination count for more, and will take you much further. Graduates are increasingly expected to enter the jobs market armed with a mass of unpaid work experience - and expected to undertake paid work to fund said unpaid work if the Bank of Mum and Dad has insufficient funds.

Around 61% of graduates take jobs with companies they've interned with. While some competitive internships remain sadly based on who you know rather than what, building up a work-related portfolio of other experiences still goes a long way. Free time is a seriously underestimated advantage for non-Oxbridge students looking to boost their CV (Oxbridge really doesn't leave you much spare time) and while students are often attacked for not working hard enough, it could well be the hours devoted to student journalism, university societies, work experience placements, or virtually any other productive non-degree-related activity which can make or break a job application.

So if you've just submitted your application, don't worry. This shift seems terrifying but can be positive too: you're more in control of where your degree, Oxbridge or not, will take you than it might seem.]]>The Poverty of the Daily Mailtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30076762013-04-03T12:49:08-04:002013-06-03T05:12:01-04:00Anna Claeyshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-claeys/
That morning, I choked on my breakfast cornflakes as I doubled back in disbelief during my daily scan of newspaper headlines. Did I see correctly - the Daily Mail accusing the welfare state, designed to combat poverty and protect our vulnerable, of 'producing' a sick man who eventually murdered six children? Oh, yes, I did.

Moving from one deeply troubled individual with a history of drug problems and criminal charges to painting welfare claimants as selfish and irresponsible with one broad sweep of the brush is inexcusable journalistic distortion of facts. It is one thing to highlight the various problems in the Philpotts' past; it is quite another to use this tragic and highly unusual case to viciously attack the dependents of benefits, claiming that a "drug-taking layabout... embodies everything that is wrong with the welfare state". The Mail's editors could have blamed the failure of drug or criminal rehabilitation; they could have highlighted the mistakes of local social services; but instead they chose to attack the benefit system. This morning, the Daily Mail's prioritisation of its political agenda did not even try to hide behind the façade of objective journalism.

The tragedy is that while this morning's fresh attempt at the character assassination of welfare claimants was shocking, it fits quite neatly with a much longer term pattern in the popular press. Editors frequently pluck out one shocking case, using it to justify a continued attack on whichever 'problem' they seek to highlight: benefits claimants, immigrants, the NHS. On Wednesday, the Mail ran a story about benefit fraud duly forgetting to note that only around 1% of benefit cases are fraudulent. Displaying a similar enthusiasm for fact selection, The Sun recently ran a story emphasising Britain's 'soft-touch' for so-called 'benefit tourists', simultaneously attacking immigration standards and the welfare system. The article forgot to point out that only around 6.4% of benefit claimants are foreign nationals. With data journalism increasingly seen as important, websites using statistical evidence to counteract such generalisations are vital - to reveal, for instance, that only 3% of welfare spending is on the unemployed. As a historian, I am trained to examine a wide range of evidence before producing an informed conclusion - the same skills a journalist needs to exhibit. But recently, the principle of objective journalism has been molested again and again by fact-picking, false generalisations, and a complete disregard of the wider picture.

The shameful result of smear campaigns by the popular press is a deep ingraining of false stereotypes in society, and apathy - if not acceptance - of the current government's cuts to the welfare state. Last year, for example, we spent £116bn on welfare. But as the Guardian pointed out, tax evasion and avoidance is estimated to cost us £120bn. In theory, if this tax was reclaimed we could double welfare spending - it all comes down to political priorities, as shown perfectly by the Mail this morning.

The Daily Mail continue to have a right to publish stories containing as much bias as much as they like; the only solution the journalistic community and wider public can build is to openly reject this standard of journalism.]]>Gove's Proposed History Curriculum Forgets That We Live in 2013, Not the 1950stag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27236552013-02-20T07:58:52-05:002013-04-22T05:12:01-04:00Anna Claeyshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-claeys/
But under the self-congratulatory heading 'Britain's global impact in the nineteenth century', Education Secretary Michael Gove seems to want Key Stage 3 children to understand anti-colonial revolts as disobedient 'mutinies' under the new national history curriculum, to be finalised this September for introduction in 2014. Gove's narrow-minded and outdated analysis paints a rosy, appealing picture of history as seen through the eyes of former British supremacy - ignoring the realities of history and of modern Britain. The children of Britain's three million residents of Bangladeshi, Pakistani or Indian origin deserve better.

No-one would suggest that objective narratives of British history are easy, even possible. But the recent revelations about border omissions in Israeli and Palestinian textbooks show just how important the state's storytelling role is in molding the mentality of future generations. Children simply should not grow up shaped through the two serious flaws in Gove's curriculum: its glossy view of the British empire, and its supposition of British isolationism and consequent neglect of extra-European history.

Normans, Tudors, Stuarts and Victorian statesmen all feature centrally in a convenient Whiggish tale of 'progress' in British history, culminating nicely in the abolition of slavery, the Welfare State and decolonisation. The study of 'ancient civilisations' remains important - Greek and Roman, that is. Not the Chinese, Mughal, Aztec or Ghanaian empires.

Worse, Gove inexcusably glosses over some of the worst horrors of British colonial history; yet his first stated aim is to show "how Britain influenced the world". Mau Mau and British-run forced labour camps in South Africa, for example, seem forgotten. By contrast, the atrocities of Nazi Germany are explicitly described as a "unique evil" - while certainly so, selecting massacres according to country seems slightly biased.

Cambridge professor Richard Evans condemns the new proposals as "a Little England version of our national past", seeming with "patriotic stocking-fillers so beloved of traditionalists". Similarly, Oxford historian David Priestland added that "Britain in 2013... can ill afford to retreat into complacent national chauvinism". By contrast, Niall Ferguson's support is telling. The right-wing historian sees much of the British empire as 'a Good Thing', arguing in Empire that British imperial rule "made the modern world". Ferguson advised Gove on the future of history education, and his influence shines through.

Understandably, Gove wants to provide children with a comprehensible and relatable understanding of history. In some aspects, he is on the right track: emphasising chronology and connectivity between historical events is a gaping hole in the current curriculum. 'Great Men' still have their place, particularly in children's books. Other parts of the national curriculum, such as emphasis on citizenship, have been met with widespread enthusiasm.

But much global history - bar the United States - remains underplayed both in the current and proposed curricula. Under Gove's proposals, children will approach GCSEs with an understanding of African history only through the colonial and slave contexts. They may know General Gordon of Khartoum, but won't know Prempeh I, the Asante ruler whose polite decline of British 'protectorate' offers and attempts at London-based diplomacy were met by British attacks and colonial conquest. Children will know Clive of India, but will probably never have heard of his predecessor Aurangzeb, the Mughal ruler of over 100 million subjects for half a century. It saddens me that British children may take pride when learning about the empire while others see their ancestors' history only through the colonial lens.

'We live in Britain, so children should learn British history', some will argue. But modern Britain is multinational. Politicians promote London as a global hub, with fewer than half its residents falling under the category 'white British'. One in eight Britons is born outside the UK. The problems of immigration aside, multiracial and multiethnic Britain is here to stay. And its children need education - above all, to understand the basic fact that modern society is now global.

Of course, teaching children is vastly different from undergraduate history - complex issues must be adjusted to their age group, and individual characters illuminated to capture children's imagination. But the important ideas, including the character of the British empire, Britain's relationship with other countries and international power politics filter through into children's views of the world. As undergraduates, we are constantly and rightly criticised for letting Eurocentric ideas seep into essays; the Education Secretary would undoubtedly struggle. If the mentality of future generations continues to be one of nostalgic analyses about our supposed global power and the beneficence of the former empire, Britain's reputation in future international relations will be seriously damaged.

http://annaclaeys.wordpress.com/]]>Maternity-Leave 'Mumtrepeneurs'? Get Realtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21160332012-11-12T19:00:00-05:002013-01-12T05:12:01-05:00Anna Claeyshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-claeys/Stylist women do: their 'smart, successful, and sophisticated' female readership apparently uses their maternity leave to "reinvent their work lives" and become - wait for it - mumtrepeneurs. High-achieving women who successfully balance their work and family life should always be credited as role models. But to claim, shortly after childbirth, that this is attainable or even desirable for most working women is just plain crazy.

Above all, it's a class issue. Stylist readers must be the epitome of middle-class suburban mums; all four women interviewed are blonde Caucasians. The idea of lounging around during your maternity leave, spending the morning in coffee shops with other mums - having enough time to quit your job and create a business plan - just screams high-income husbands, supportive and available family members, pre-school daycare and nannies. In the middle of the worst recession of almost a century, you'd have to be extremely lucky to get that chance.

Single mothers, women claiming income support, or mothers in two-parent families struggling to get by, can hardly be in a position to leave a job - let alone take out a bank loan or conjure up the capital to start a business. Which, by the way, is the case for the vast majority of working women. Stylist needs a reality check.

Secondly, it's demeaning to motherhood that society should pressure women into having a high-flying career so soon after having children. Now I've never had a baby, but some people (and it's just rumours I hear) say the first few months are no easy feat. Something about sleepless nights, constant feeding, crying, hormones flying. Apparently not for Laura Tenison, MBE and business owner, both of whose children were born on Fridays, conveniently allowing her to return to work on Monday. Or Justine Roberts, co-founder of the successful website Mumsnet, who "wrote a business plan with one twin on each knee".

One comment remarked how inspirational these women are. These cases certainly are - but that doesn't mean non-mumtrepeneurs (I can make up words too) are not inspiring.

So yes, these women are amazing - but they're not the norm, and nor should they be seen as such. My own mum, certainly middle-class, suburban and with a careerist husband, recalls barely finding time to shower or go grocery shopping when she had twin babies and a two-year-old girl: anyone who thinks she spent those first few months pondering how to 'reinvent her career' must be mad.

Mothers who want to get back into work quickly should be given the full support to do so. Especially after the initial maternity period is over. But pushing a human being out of your vagina and subsequently protecting and nurturing it 24/7- 365 for its first vulnerable years is also a tough, admirable full-time job - and needs to be seen as such.

So if you manage to juggle starting a new business career with maternity leave, good for you. But don't let Stylist tell you that if you aren't a mumtrepeneur (and I think I speak for everyone when I want to vomit at that word) you aren't a smart, successful and sophisticated woman.]]>Male, Pale and Stale: The Gender Gap in the UK's Leading Rolestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19512522012-10-09T19:00:00-04:002012-12-09T05:12:02-05:00Anna Claeyshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-claeys/
Almost half of FTSE 250 boards have no female board directors. Just four of 87 executives appointed by FTSE 100 companies in the past two years have been women. In the fashion industry - a supposedly female area - just 5% of board members are women. Only 22% of MPs and peers are women, and our Supreme Court has 11 men and only one woman.

Targets and quotas in FTSE boards have dominated recent discussions on this problem, including Lord Davies' influential report. While this is important, it's only one half of the picture: the other side, namely our approach to childcare and parental leave, will determine the future of this problem.

In the context of childcare, the disparity isn't surprising. 86% of men work full time, compared with 56% of women. Men are simply more available to rise quickly through the ranks. The gender pay gap increases after the age of 29 - the average age of motherhood. So, it is the first few difficult years of family life that policy should target, to help women ensure they ultimately reach the top jobs. And solutions must be applicable to all careers, not just FTSE boards. How can we tackle this?

The first step is our attitude towards parental leave. Britain lags behind Europe in having one of the highest levels of maternity leave and lowest levels of leave for fathers. In Sweden, parents take 480 days leave between them - and Sweden's boards and parliament have significantly higher proportions of women. But change is underway. Under a new system planned for 2015, mothers will have 18 weeks automatic leave, fathers six weeks, as well as another seven months to be split between them. This is long overdue: parenthood will be divided more fairly and discrimination in hiring will fall since the risk of an employee seeking parental leave will be more equal between the sexes.

The second step is moulding a balance between family and work life. The best solution for many employers is flexible working. BT's flexi-hours system has resulted in 90% of female employees returning after maternity leave, over double the industry average. There are various combinations of home working and flexible or part time office hours, and a recent YouGov poll found that over half of adults think they'd be able to do their job from home. Flexible working need not be permanent, but in children's early years it can be vital in ensuring that women are able to continue to advance their careers. Flexi hours can be good for business, too. BT regard this as a business philosophy focusing on targets rather than rigid hours and locations and according to BT's chairman, "it has saved the company millions...motivated our people and released more potential".

These ideas help to tackle the third problem: the high cost of childcare. British families spend almost a third of their income on childcare, compared with 4.6% in Sweden or 8% in Germany - a crippling amount in the current economic climate, which forces many women to stay at home. Elizabeth Truss MP recently called for an overhaul in the childcare system in a report for CentreForum, aiming to increase the number of childminders and make childcare more affordable. Additionally, businesses can do their part: Ford provide an on-site crèche at Dunton Technical Centre, where around 3,000 staff work.

The solution is evidently multifaceted, requiring the full support of employers and businesses, the government as well as both parents. And of course, diversity doesn't stop at gender, and inequalities by class, race and region remain prevalent. But the current system continues to leave women severely underrepresented - this is an issue not just for women, but for our economy and society as a whole.]]>